Letter: a prospective real life comparison of the efficacy of adalimumab vs. golimumab in moderate to severe ulcerative colitis

Continuous clinical remission with biologics in ulcerative colitis: the 'AURORA' comparison study

OBJECTIVES

Comparative trials among biological drugs for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC) provided conflicting results. After patent expire of infliximab originator, adalimumab, infliximab biosimilar, golimumab and vedolizumab have been approved in Italy.We compared the efficacy of these four biologics in UC according to the concept of continuous clinical remission (CCR).

METHODS

In a retrospective, multicentre study, all UC patients treated with adalimumab, infliximab biosimilar, golimumab or vedolizumab between 2014 and 2019 were included. All drugs were compared to each other according to the 1-year CCR rate, defined as Mayo partial score ≤2, with bleeding subscore = 0, without any relapse or optimization with dose escalation, topical treatments or steroid use after first clinical remission.

RESULTS

Four-hundred sixteen patients (adalimumab = 90, infliximab biosimilar = 105, golimumab = 79, vedolizumab = 142) were included. CCR was achieved in similar percentages among the groups (33%, 37%, 28%, 37%, respectively). All drugs were equivalent in biologic-naive patients, while vedolizumab was better than a second anti-TNFα in prior anti-TNFα agent failures. No differences were found according to type of adverse events or severe adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on a strict definition of clinical remission, all biologics appear equally effective at 1 year. Changing to vedolizumab is more effective than switching to another anti-TNFα in TNFα failures.

Frequency and Effectiveness of Empirical Anti-TNF Dose Intensification in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Loss of response to antitumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapies in inflammatory bowel disease occurs in a high proportion of patients. Our aim was to evaluate the loss of response to anti-TNF therapy, considered as the need for dose intensification (DI), DI effectiveness and the possible variables influencing its requirements. Bibliographical searches were performed.

SELECTION

prospective and retrospective studies assessing DI in Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis patients treated for at least 12 weeks with an anti-TNF drug.

EXCLUSION CRITERIA

studies using anti-TNF as a prophylaxis for the postoperative recurrence in Crohn's disease or those where DI was based on therapeutic drug monitoring.

DATA SYNTHESIS

effectiveness by intention-to-treat (random effects model). Data were stratified by medical condition (ulcerative colitis vs. Crohn's disease), anti-TNF drug and follow-up.

RESULTS

One hundred and seventy-three studies (33,241 patients) were included. Overall rate of the DI requirement after 12 months was 28% (95% CI 24-32, I2 = 96%, 41 studies) in naïve patients and 39% (95% CI 31-47, I2 = 86%, 18 studies) in non-naïve patients. The DI requirement rate was higher both in those with prior anti-TNF exposure (p = 0.01) and with ulcerative colitis (p = 0.02). The DI requirement rate in naïve patients after 36 months was 35% (95% CI 28-43%; I2 = 98%; 18 studies). The overall short-term response and remission rates of empirical DI in naïve patients were 63% (95% CI 48-78%; I2 = 99%; 32 studies) and 48% (95% CI: 39-58%; I2 = 92%; 25 studies), respectively. The loss of response to anti-TNF agents-and, consequently, DI-occurred frequently in inflammatory bowel disease (approximately in one-fourth at one year and in one-third at 3 years). Empirical DI was a relatively effective therapeutic option.

Effectiveness of golimumab in ulcerative colitis: A review of the real world evidence

BACKGROUND

Biologics against tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) have dramatically changed the management of moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC). In pivotal clinical trials, golimumab showed efficacy as induction and maintenance therapy in anti-TNF naïve UC patients. However, confirmatory data on effectiveness in the real world setting are needed.

AIM

to summarize recent evidence on the effectiveness of golimumab in observational real-world studies.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using Medline, Embase, and congresses databases for English language articles or abstracts on the effectiveness of golimumab published between January 1, 2014 and May 15, 2018. Pooled short-term (6-14 weeks) and mid- and long-term (24-54 weeks) clinical response and remission rates were calculated.

RESULTS

24 abstracts were included; of those 8 were published full-text articles and 16 were abstracts from medical conferences. Overall, pooled short-term clinical response and remission rates were 59.3% (range 35-85.5%; 13 studies; 1429 patients) and 35.9% (range 14-51.7%; 9 studies; 666 patients), respectively. Pooled mid- and long-term clinical response and remission rates were 60.3% (range 37.1-89.5%; 4 studies; 356 patients) and 39.2% (range 12-84%; 8 studies; 822 patients), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Results: of observational studies confirm that golimumab is an effective therapy for UC in clinical practice.

A real life comparison of the effectiveness of adalimumab and golimumab in moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis, supported by propensity score analysis

BACKGROUND

Adalimumab and golimumab are effective in the treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis.

AIMS

We reported the comparative effectiveness of adalimumab and golimumab in ulcerative colitis.

METHODS

118 patients treated with adalimumab and 79 treated with golimumab were included and evaluated at 8 weeks and at the end of follow up.

RESULTS

Overall clinical benefit was 72.6% at 8 weeks and 58.9% at the end of follow up. Patients with longer disease duration and those treated with adalimumab had a better outcome. Clinical benefit was 78.8% in adalimumab patients and 63.3% in golimumab patients (p = 0.026) after 8 weeks; it was 66.9% in adalimumab patients and 46.8% in golimumab patients (p = 0.008) at the end of follow up. These data were confirmed by propensity score analysis. A further analysis considering adalimumab optimization as treatment failure showed that the difference between adalimumab and golimumab was not significant.

CONCLUSION

Adalimumab and golimumab are effective in the treatment of ulcerative colitis. Adalimumab seems to be more effective than golimumab. This difference is probably affected by the impossibility of golimumab to be optimized in Italy while adalimumab is.

Effectiveness and safety of adalimumab to treat outpatient ulcerative colitis: A real-life multicenter, observational study in primary inflammatory bowel disease centers

Adalimumab (ADA) was approved in Italy for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC) unresponsive to standard treatments in 2014, but no data from real life are currently available. The aim of the present study was to assess the real-life efficacy and safety of ADA in managing UC outpatients in some Italian primary inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) centers after approval of ADA reimbursement.Consecutive UC outpatients with at least 3-month follow-up were retrospectively evaluated. The primary end point was the induction and maintenance of remission in UC, defined as Mayo score ≤2.One hundred seven patients were included. At 3-month follow-up, obtained in 102 (95.3%) patients, 56 (54.9%) patients achieved a clinical remission. At univariate analysis, both Mayo partial score >7 and Mayo subscore for endoscopy = 3 at entry showed to be significantly associated with the lack of remission induction.During a median (95% confidence interval [CI]) follow-up of 18 (12-24) months, 56.6% of patients were under clinical remission; clinical response was achieved in 89.2% of cases. Mucosal healing was achieved in 66 (76.7%) patients, and colectomy occurred in 3 (2.8%) patients. Both C-reactive protein and fecal calprotectin values significantly decreased during follow-up. Steroids discontinuation occurred in 67 (66.7%) patients, and ADA dose escalation was adopted in 9 (16.1%) patients under remission. No factor was significantly related to the maintenance of clinical remission.This first Italian experience found ADA safe and effective to induce and maintain remission in real-life UC outpatients.

Golimumab: early experience and medium-term outcomes from two UK tertiary IBD centres

OBJECTIVE

To gain an understanding of the effectiveness of golimumab in a 'real-world' setting.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study using prospectively maintained clinical records.

SETTING

Two UK tertiary IBD centres.

PATIENTS

Patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) were given golimumab at Guy's & St Thomas and King's College Hospitals between September 2014 and December 2016.

INTERVENTION

Golimumab, a subcutaneously administered antitumour necrosis factor agent.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Clinical disease activity was assessed at baseline and at the first clinical review following induction therapy using the Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index (SCCAI). Response was defined as an SCCAI reduction of 3 points or more. Remission was defined as an SCCAI of less than 3.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven patients with UC completed golimumab induction therapy. Paired preinduction and postinduction SCCAI values were available for 31 patients and fell significantly from 7 (2-19) to 3 (0-11) (p<0.001). To these 31, an additional 13 patients who did not have paired SCCAI data but stopped treatment due to documented 'non-response' in the opinion of their supervising clinician, were added. Among this combined cohort, 23/44 (52%) had a clinical response, 15/44 (34%) achieved remission and 13/44 (30%) achieved corticosteroid-free remission.Faecal calprotectin and CRP fell (FC: pre-induction: 1096 (15-4800) μg/g, post-induction: 114 (11-4800) μg/g, p = 0.011; n = 20; CRP: pre-induction: 4 (1-59) mg/L, post-induction: 2 (1-34) mg/L, p = 0.01 for n = 43). Post-induction endoscopy was carried out in 23 patients and a mucosal healing (Mayo 0 or 1) rate of 35% was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Our experience mirrors previously reported real-world cohorts and demonstrates similar outcomes to those observed in randomised controlled trials. These data demonstrate a meaningful reduction in clinical, biochemical and endoscopic disease activity as well as a steroid-sparing effect in patients with previously refractory disease.

Real World Effectiveness of Golimumab Therapy in Ulcerative Colitis Regardless of Prior TNF Exposure

Background

The efficacy of golimumab to induce and maintain remission in biologic-naïve patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) is established from placebo-controlled trials. However, golimumab's real-world effectiveness, important to physicians and payers, remains unexplored.

Aim

The goal of this study was to describe real-world use and rate of persistence among UC patients with golimumab therapy and to assess factors that predict discontinuation during golimumab maintenance treatment.

Methods

A retrospective study of UC patients receiving golimumab maintenance therapy (August 2012-August 2015) was conducted on dosing data from a national case management program. Treatment persistence, defined as time from index prescription to the last dose (gap in dose >60 days), was assessed using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Predictors of treatment persistence were explored with Cox proportional hazards regression.

Results

One hundred thirty-six patients (50.7% male) with a mean (SD) age of 44.4 (15.6) years were included. At golimumab initiation, 72.1% were naïve to anti-TNFs; 77.2% received 200 mg, while 4.4% and 18.4% received 50 mg and 100 mg, respectively, every 4 weeks (induction therapy). The median time to discontinuation was 530 days, with a cumulative probability of 63% to remain on therapy at one year. Age, gender, golimumab induction, golimumab maintenance dose and prior anti-TNF exposure were not significantly associated with treatment persistence. Dose adjustment occurred in 7.4% of patients during maintenance treatment.

Conclusions

Overall, the persistence rate of golimumab observed in the current real-world study is similar to that described in previous single-centre UC cohorts and consistent with that seen in controlled clinical trials.